Readers of this blog need no convincing that the population scare is mere myth. But feel free to suggest other policies from China that would work on a global scale as well. Judging by the the author's thoroughly thoughtful article, Chinese suppression of information is off the table since it's already been implemented. Freedom from religion, a vital component of any "healthy" regime, is also not open to discussion, since it would have to come along with a global one-child policy. Er, I guess state-sponsored abortion would also be necessary, since we can't get people to stop having sex merely by telling them to limit their progeny to half the number of people required to reproduce. Hm. So what's left? Replacing "In God we Trust" on our currency with "Psalm 137:9"?
HT: Mere Comments
Posts
6 comments:
Well, the good news is that those who think that way are acting that way. In a generation, they'll be gone and will have left no children to whom they could have taught such nonsense. I guess Darwin did get a few things right.
The problem is that they teach it to other people's children through the government-run schools.
So long as these policy makers buy into the assumption that social engineering minus the Fifth Commandment is the best approach to solving our world's problems, it would seem to me far more efficient to let the birth rate remain as it is and euthanize all persons 60 years of age and over. Note that this also would solve the Medicare and Social Security crises, problems of a sort that is even more severe in China, Japan, Germany, and several other low-birth-rate "developed" nations. Euthanizing the elderly also would allow the "inconvenient truth" regime to more readily indoctrinate the population, since newborns would be deprived of the wisdom of their grandparents. The state already has largely replaced parenthood (Sir Cuthbert mentions schools, but government subsidized daycare is perhaps even more effective). Why not eliminate grandparents, too?
More on this from Dr. Veith:
http://www.geneveith.com/climate-change-and-population-control/_4056/
Thanks for the link Christopher. I left a post on Dr. Veith's post in response to "Jonathan" who sees nothing "anti-Lutheran" about limiting ourselves to one child. My guess is that Luther would object to Jonathan using his name to identify his beliefs.
Okay, you have to see the hilarity of this idea that Christians have tons and tons of kids. In my large very Christian homeschool group, which is only a subset of Christians, the average number of kids is 3.1 per family.
Post a Comment